I need these questions answered by an atheist persepective. Please tell me if you need some clarity in questions.

1.What is the nature of God?
2.What is the nature of man?
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
4.How do you fix evil?
5.What happens when you die?
6.What is your source for this information?
7.How reliable is your source?
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

Thanks all!

1/ HOAX for various dishonest reasons
2/ Answered to many times
3/ Evil is an individuals choice and is not some contextually detached abstraction
4/ Free will. Only individuals can decide to be moral
5/ You cease to exist
6/ Reality - The objective observation of existense and that which exists
7/ A is A there is no option
8/ See above

I know, I know, I'm late, too. I've been busy (and will be busy again for a week or so...)

1.What is the nature of God?
Capital 'g' indicates Christian deity - nature as determined by person in whose mind the concept resides - since 'God' only exists as a concept, it has no external nature.
2.What is the nature of man?
Same as any other animal, tweaked somewhat by self-awareness.
3.How do you explain the presence of evil?
Again, as a concept in people's minds. Does not exist externally.
4.How do you fix evil?
Depends on the mind/concept - more importantly, what does 'fixing evil' mean? Why should it be 'fixed'?
5.What happens when you die?
Usually, when a person dies, those that cared for it mourn, etc.
6.What is your source for this information?
For which information, specifically? Generally, logical thought applied to objective input and my three assupmtions.
7.How reliable is your source?
Which source? So far, no known, incorrectable errors.
8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?
By wrong, you mean incorrect. Also, you are directly implying 'wrong about God not existing, afterlife, etc.' Not to mention the implied threat of Hell. I have no fear of being incorrect in my answers, if I am, I simply admit it and modify. What is the chance of atheism being incorrect? Much, much lower than the chance of theims being incorrect - so close to 0% as to be negligible.

As for the 'source of morality' - what is your source? God? If so, 'God' just made up the morals it imposes on you, so there is not difference - in fact, it would be better if you arrived at your morality yourself, instead of letting someone else (or something else) dictate them to you.

The reason I think quantum mechanics allows for some kind of free-will is that I also believe quantum mechanics is what ultimately gives us consciousness and allows our brain to function as it does, when making choices. In quantum mechanics there is something called Quantum Indeterminacy, which means exactly that, it is indeterminent. There is no cause, things happen to occur at random. So, when I am presented with the choice, should I eat the cake or shouldn't I, the randomness of these quantum interactions within my brain add to what I already know about my environment (will I get punished, will I get sick etc.) in order to decide whether I will do it or not.

This is interesting but leaves the problem that you can hardly call a random act "free-will". Rhinoq hit the nail on the head when he tied free-will to responsibility. You can hardly be morally responsible for a choice if it only occured because of some random Quantum Indeterminacy.

The reason why determinism is a problem for free will is the same problem that randomness poses to free will. Free Will is concerned with responsibility of action, and if our actions are purely determined, there is no responsibility. Likewise, if our actions are purely random, there is no responsibility.

QM will not solve the problem of free will, because QM, or any field of physics, chemistry, or biology, does not deal with responsibility. Think of it this way; do we really need some complex math equation that explains why you choose pie with ice cream over pie without ice cream?

On a side note, some philosophers presented solutions to the free will/determinism problem long before QM was ever dreamed of. Hume believed that it was a problem of language; when we talk of causation in physics, we are simply talking about motivations for the human mind (this is way to simplistic, but you get my point).

Rhinoq

Do you think there is any way that free-will can be possible without some kind of dualism ? It seems to me that even with QM our caused and random universe would leave no space for free-will and responsibility.

I take your point about equations and ice-cream to mean that in a practical day-to-day sense we have free-will and responsibility because we think that we do, even if at a fundamental logical and physical level we do not. And I think about that really as just a complexity problem. Fundamentally it seems that given sufficient knowledge, understanding, computing power and cash it would be possible to build an exact replica model of myself that would act in all the ways I appear to choose to act, based on the same inputs. It really is a clockwork universe without dualism.

Do you think there is any way that free-will can be possible without some kind of dualism ? It seems to me that even with QM our caused and random universe would leave no space for free-will and responsibility.

I take your point about equations and ice-cream to mean that in a practical day-to-day sense we have free-will and responsibility because we think that we do, even if at a fundamental logical and physical level we do not. And I think about that really as just a complexity problem. Fundamentally it seems that given sufficient knowledge, understanding, computing power and cash it would be possible to build an exact replica model of myself that would act in all the ways I appear to choose to act, based on the same inputs. It really is a clockwork universe without dualism.

Dualism creates more problems than it solves, the biggest being how could some non-physical substance interact with physical substance. It also seems difficult, if not impossible, to formulate Laws dealing with the non-physical (Mind, consciousness, etc.) in relation to the physical. So no, I would not embrace dualism to solve any of our philosophical quandaries. I endorse anomalous monism, which is a theory of non-reductive materialism developed by Donald Davidson.

And as for ice cream and math equations, I feel that any equations we could derive from QM would be more complex than the system we are trying to explain (why ice-cream). For responsibility, my point is that physics is unable to talk about responsibility; there are no terms in the science Language Game for responsibility, so science (on its own) is unable to settle questions of this nature.

I don't think Free Will is that big of a problem. We have two choices: Either we have FW, or we are determined to believe we have FW. Either way, we need a concept of FW and responsibility, at least pragmatically, for society to function.

Rhinoq

Wait just a minute-You expect me to believe-That all this misbehaving-Grew from one enchanted tree? And helpless to fight it-We should all be satisfied-With this magical explanation-For why the living die-And why it's hard to be a decent human being - David Bazan

thats a rather vague question. the end result of what happens if i am wrong, is essentially determined by what is right.

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

i fail to see how one could possibly determine the actual chance of whether atheism is right or wrong. atheism is simply the default position one should take, if there is a lack evidence for the existence of any god(s).

Well, deities started as a way to explain the inexplicible- kinda like this:

"We don't know where this stuff came from, and we can't understand it. That must mean it was made by someone with much more understanding than us." (Now that we understand stuff more, we don't need the 'deity fallback' explanation.)

Then they transmorgrified into a form of controll- kinda like this.

Peasant- "Life sucks."
King- "Yeah, but if you shut the hell up and worship your god, you will live in eternal bliss forever."
Peasant- "Sweet. PRAISE THE LORD!"

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

2.What is the nature of man?

Heh. What is the nature of cats? What is the nature of bacteria? What is the nature of viruses? We are here, with no real purpose, no greater goal, and we are nothing special. We act for survival and personal pleasure. Enjoy it.

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?

There are no evil people- only evil acts. How do you define evil? It is a changing thing. It changes with cultural perceptions. Why do evil acts happen? Well, there are a few things we must say to answer this.

a) Someone does something they do not think is evil, but current culture does see as evil. We call these people with differante perceptions of evil 'psychopaths' and 'mentaly deranged.'

b) Same reason humans do everything. Thats the way evolution turned us out- with our thinking minds, sometimes personal goals outweigh culteral perceptions, and people do things that are currently deemed evil by society.

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

4.How do you fix evil?

Well, there are 3 ways that I can see:

a) Kill all the humans.

b) Redefine evil. This happens a lot, and the definition is differant everywhere. Ethics are not set in stone, each person has a differant set of principals. Suicide bombing to kill hundreds of Americains may seem evil to you, but may be the peak of goodness to a muslem extreamest. Evil is defined by the people and the culture.

c) Brainwash all the humans, or otherwise exert complete controll over them all. Capture all humans and put them in some matrix type thing in which evil (or any form of thought or free will) is not possible. Would this act be evil? Depends on the person and the culture you ask. It would, after all, eliminate evil.

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

5.What happens when you die?

Well, you stop existing. Then you arent there any more. Your body eventually decays.

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

6.What is your source for this information?

Life

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

7.How reliable is your source?

Meh, I'd say about 42. Maybe 43.

What kind of question is this? Logic tells me there isnt a god. Life tells me there is no need for one. There is no evidence of a soul. So lack of evidence is my source. Wheras yours is some old book writen thousandds of years ago by some guys who couldn't understand the world. I think I win.

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

8. What if you are wrong?

I am wrong, a lot. I usually throw a hissy fit, but I sometimes kick people.

If I am wrong about the existance of (a) deity(s)? I'll be kinda surprised, but not too much. I don't deny that there is probably a type of being out there with a higher level of conciousness than we have (just like we have higher conciosness than bugs. But I doubt it would be a creator- no more than we are the creators of bugs.)
If I happen to exist in an afterlife, I will be even more surprised. (There could be something more to life than the sum of its parts. Conciousness does seem pretty cool. I doubt it, though.)
If there is a deity ruling over this afterlife, my surprisedness will reach a 5 on a scale of 1 to 10.
If the deity is one of those that humans have concocted, I will be somewhere around 9 on the surprised scale. And if that deity happens to be the christian god- well, I'd be around a 42 on the scale. Or 43. Whats the chances that the god would be yours (if it was a human concocted deity)? One in a million? Less?

Quote:

kattrocks wrote

What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

I already told you! 42. Or 43.

As I said, I don't rule out the existance of a species with higher conciousness. As for there being a creator, I find the chances of that slim. And as it for being your god- I think about 182378915498758012930134756.234576x10^652381982536 75 to 1 against.

What is God? We Atheists reject the notion of God as a fallacy based on evidence, or lack thereof. But at least we don't presume to know the inner workings of a supreme being based on a book.

Quote:

2.What is the nature of man?

Procreation for the purposes of continuation of genes.

Quote:

3.How do you explain the presence of evil?

Evil is nothing more than a concept within the minds of man. It is the polar opposite of the concept of good. There is no evil without good and no good without evil.

Quote:

4.How do you fix evil?

Without good there is no evil. Therefore to eliminate evil we must first eliminate good. Which would you prefer?

Quote:

5.What happens when you die?

The body begins to cool, then becomes pallid as blood ceases to be pumped. Sphincter muscles slacken and releases urine, feces, and stomach contents. Blood settles in the relatively lower parts of the body and begins to coagulate as body tempature drops. Rigor mortis sets in, peaks at approximately 12 hours and dissapears in 36 depending on conditions.

Within a day decomposition begins to occur as a result of autolytic changes and foreign catalytic organisms. Internal body structures will begin to rot. Noxious gases are released as a result of bacterial activity during the putrefication process, causing bloating as the gases accumulate within yet intact body structure. The skin begins to disintegrate along with internal muscle structures, cumulating in total collapse of external physical structures. Once muscle decomposition is complete only the skeletal structure will remain.

Does that answer your question?

Quote:

6.What is your source for this information?

Logic. And an internship.

Quote:

7.How reliable is your source?

Very, for I am my own source.

Quote:

8. What if you are wrong? What is the chance that atheism being wrong?

As with all things, there is a probability, no matter how small, that Atheism is wrong. After all there is no conclusive evidence of the absence of God. We merely collated scientific and philosopical findings from other areas and juxtaposed them to the context of religion to conclude that there is no God.

But then again it's more reasonable to base one's views on concrete findings rather than on a collection of words that were dictated, written, and propagated by pre-scientific humans t arrive at a conclusion, is it not?